2016 (8) TMI 453 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of unexplained expenditure - Held that - The finding of the CIT-A examined the profit and loss account and schedules annexed thereto, wherein he agreed with the contention of the assessee that an amount of ₹ 1,94,03,13,928/- includes the value of crude oil and other related items such as chemicals and hydrogen gas and found the same in schedule P which was annexed to the profit and loss account. In this regard we may refer to chart of particulars as reflecting in the page no-4 of CIT-A where it shows the raw material as per Schedule-P and raw material as per notes on accounts wherein we found that an amounts ₹ 2,17,81,926/- and 82,80,116/- to be purchase values of chemicals and Hydrogen gas respectively totaling to 3,32,75,131/- and regarding MODVAT, which can be availed towards payment of excise duty on finished goods and it is pertinent to state that the balance will be entered directly to the balance sheet as per the procedure prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT(A) deleting addition of unexplained expenditure.

Analysis:
1. The revenue appealed against the CIT(A) order deleting an addition of ?3,32,75,131 made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure. The assessment was reopened by the AO under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2005-06, as raw material consumption expenditure was not reflected in the profit and loss account.

2. The appellant contended that the addition was arbitrary and lacked basis. The AO computed an imaginary difference of ?5,11,14,650, ignoring chemicals and hydrogen gas expenses. The appellant explained the discrepancy, highlighting that the figures for raw material consumed included various components not considered by the AO. The AO's computation errors and failure to consider all relevant factors were emphasized.

3. The CIT(A) found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the AO's decision lacked proper findings and was based on presumptions rather than factual evidence. The AO overlooked crucial details in the audited books of account and rejected the appellant's explanation without substantial grounds. The CIT(A) concluded that the addition was unjustified both legally and factually, directing the deletion of ?3,32,75,131.

4. On appeal, the revenue reiterated the AO's findings, emphasizing the alleged unexplained difference in expenditure. However, the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis revealed that the raw material consumption figures in the profit and loss account included all relevant components, contrary to the AO's assertion. The proper treatment of MODVAT credit and the reconciliation of discrepancies were crucial aspects considered by the CIT(A).

5. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the appellant adequately explained the discrepancy in raw material consumption. The tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The detailed analysis of the raw material consumption figures and the treatment of MODVAT credit supported the conclusion that the addition of ?3,32,75,131 was unjustified.